For because he was of a Jewish mother, instructed from infancy in the synagogue in the sacred letters—that is, in the volumes of the Hebrews—he allowed himself to be circumcised, that he might remove the scandal for the Jews, since they had zeal for their own race. 'Finally, when Titus,' he says, 'was a Greek, he was not compelled to be circumcised' (Gal. 2:3). But Timothy, because he was of a Jewish mother, as I said, the Jews would not allow to be taken up among the teachers uncircumcised. For this reason the Apostle took him up, that he might ordain him bishop, as indeed he did. For, being instructed in the prophetic letters, he was found a suitable teacher for asserting Christ. For the apostle Peter would not have been rebuked, had he separated himself from the Gentiles after the manner of the Jews, lest he be a scandal to them.
But this was reprehended in the apostle Peter: that whereas before he had lived after the manner of the Gentiles among the believing Greeks, when Jews came from James, being subjected through fear, he taught that the believing Gentiles ought to judaize. Hence he hears: 'If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of the Gentiles, how do you compel the Gentiles to judaize?' For he had made people doubt about the evangelical discipline—which is a crime, since he was destroying what he had built up. Therefore the apostle Paul calls this a pretense; whereas it is established that Paul, when he circumcised Timothy, did not keep silent that he was doing a superfluous thing on account of their scandal, and that he yielded for this reason: because Timothy had a Jewish mother.
For the Jews would not have insisted, unless the occasion of the Jewish mother had been found; because this they could by no means disapprove of in the Gentiles, nor easily take scandal from those who were not of the race of Israel. He did not therefore do this by pretense, but by constraint. For the above-mentioned case of Peter had no small pretense. For many were rebuked in this matter, so that some of the Jews, and even Barnabas, consented to this pretense. LVI. The Apostle says, 'We by nature Jews.' He shows, therefore, that Jews are born of Jews. Finally, those who were born in the desert were Jews, though uncircumcised. Circumcision, therefore, does not make a Jew, but birth brought forth under devotion to God the creator.
If, then, Jews are born of Jews, and Pagans are born of Pagans, then Christians too are born of Christians. Not everything that is born is the same as that from which it is born. For gold too is born from the earth, etc. LVII. What need was there that the Apostle, in rebuking the Galatians, should interpose this? For to the Galatians, who after the Gospel were fleeing back to the Law, he says among other things, 'But a mediator is not of one, whereas God is one' (Gal. 3:20)—as if the Galatians denied one God. Indeed, they had been led into the Law on this ground: that they should believe in one and single God, but that Christ had come merely as a minister, from predestination, to dispense the gift of the grace of God.
It is manifest that the Galatians had been so led into the Law that they also professed Christ, but not as is fitting—rather after the manner of Photinus—so that, because the Law preaches one God, it would be against the Law if Christ be called God. This is the fabrication of the Jews, who, overcome by the mighty works of the miracles, believed after the cross of Christ, in such a way that, while professing Christ, they nevertheless kept the Law, as though hope were not to be placed in Christ by their souls. These are those whom the Apostle calls 'false brethren' (Gal. 2:4, and 2 Cor. 11:26). They, therefore, after the tradition of the Apostles, had corrupted the sense of the Galatians, so as to make them Jews under the name of the Savior.
Hence the Apostle says that Christ came as arbiter of circumcision and uncircumcision, as he says to the Ephesians: 'Making peace in one new man' (Eph. 2:15). If, then, Christ came as arbiter, and an arbiter makes peace between two in such a way that he sets down a new rule, taking away from both their former professions, and reconciles them, so that, following his sentence, they may lay aside their former discord: for while the Jew claims circumcision and the Gentile uncircumcision, discord arises; but when this is taken away from both, peace is made. If, therefore, these things are so, 'how do you,' he says, 'O Galatians, having become Jews, corrupt the arbitration of Christ?' Therefore he said to them: 'You are made void from Christ.'
For, spurning the right of reconciliation which he had established between them, they turned back to the former sense of the Jews, accusing both themselves and the reconciler. For everything that displeases is accused. And because this matter had compelled the Galatians to turn to the Law, so as to confess one God without the mystery—as though it were hostile to the Law if Christ were called God—he says: 'An arbiter,' that is, a mediator, 'is not of one,' but assuredly of two: 'but you, having turned to the Law, have refused the arbiter; yet God is one.' By which saying he testifies that he preaches Christ as God, not so as to make another God, or to profess two, but that God is one, as was also said in the Law.
Because Christ, when he is preached as God from God, does not tend toward another God; for that which is from God does not permit itself to be called another God. For whether God, or that which is from God, God is one. For there is assuredly no difference between God and that which is from God. For he is 'another.' He himself is indeed another on account of the person, by which he is called the Son; yet he himself is the same on account of the unity of substance. And lest it seem blameworthy that I have said 'person'—for some are wont to refuse this—let us follow the Apostle who says: 'For what I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, I did it for your sake in the person of Christ' (2 Cor. 2:10).
LVIII. If salvation, and true and perfect knowledge, come through Christ, why did he not come earlier, so that our predecessors who were in ignorance might learn the truth? Finally, after the coming of Christ many were saved, more than before: whence, had he come earlier, many more would have been saved. If, then, it is so, it seems blameworthy. If one who is pressed by necessity be aided beforehand, he will indeed be grateful, yet he will not be able to know well what has been bestowed upon him, etc. LIX. That the Pagans are under the elements no one doubts. What, then, did the Apostle mean by saying, 'We too were serving under the elements of this world'? If, therefore, the Jews too were under the elements, how do they differ from the Pagans?
The Pagans do not serve under the elements, but the elements themselves. For they worship the stars, etc. LX. When the Apostle says to the Galatians—whom he thus rebukes and reproves throughout the whole Epistle—'Be as I am, because I am as you are' (Gal. 4:12): if, then, he showed himself such as they were, it was superfluous to say, 'Be as I am.' Or had he perhaps begun to be an imitator of them in certain things, and in some he wishes them to become like himself? What of theirs could the Apostle imitate? Or what was lacking to him, the teacher of the nations? But he exhorts them to be his imitators; and because it is not impossible, he thus reproves them, when he says, 'Because I am what you are: for you are men, as I too am;'
therefore do what I do.' It can also be referred to this: that since he says he became all things to all men, by assenting in those matters in which they did not depart from the truth—especially the Gentiles (1 Cor. 9:22). For there was nothing of theirs which ought no longer to be done, but had earlier been rightly done—such as circumcision, the observance of the sabbaths, of new moons, of foods. But if he approved anything of the Gentiles, he shows that it ought not now to cease. For they say that the world was fashioned by God and for men: this always stands. If, then, in these things, consenting to them, he became as they, he exhorts them that in like manner these too may become as the truth is, consenting to his doctrine.
LXI. How are we free in choice and will, when the Apostle says, 'The flesh lusts against the spirit, but the spirit against the flesh, so that you do not do the things you wish' (Gal. 5:17)? And if the flesh lusts against the spirit, it is evil—for the spirit suggests good things. In this passage understand 'flesh' not as the substance of the flesh, but as the evil acts and perfidy signified in the flesh. For because every error is from visible and worldly things, and the flesh is akin to them—for it consists of the elements—he calls every error 'flesh': he calls the works of the flesh not only adulteries, fornications, and luxury, but also idolatry, and sorceries, and blasphemies, and such things.
Does the flesh compel to blasphemy or idolatry? Are not these vices of the soul, when it consents to error? But of those who act rightly he says that they are not in the flesh, but in the spirit—and yet in this life they are assuredly in the body. He, therefore, who walks well and does not despair of the hope of the faithful, though placed in the flesh, is said not to be in the flesh; but he who lives badly and blasphemes is said to be in the flesh, and to be flesh; because, just as those who act well are spiritual together with the flesh itself, so those who live badly are carnal together with the soul itself. For this is what he means by what he says. This error, then, which he calls 'flesh,' lusts against the spirit—that is, it suggests evils against that same spirit, which is the law of God. For it leads to two laws, of God and of the devil.
Whence he says 'spirit,' because the law of God is spiritual, and it fights against the flesh—that is, it fights against the vices—that it may preserve man for God; but the law of the devil, which is error, contradicts it through the delights of luxury and worldly sweetness. Between these two, then, which are at war, stands the man in the middle: when he consents to the spirit, the flesh is unwilling; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he spurns the spirit—that is, he despises the law of God. The spirit, therefore, calls back the one who consents to the flesh, lest he do what he wishes; but the flesh solicits the one who assents to the spirit, lest he do what he thinks useful. But the spirit rightly and providently contradicts and calls back, that it may snatch man from the counsels of Satan.
But the flesh, which is the adverse law, therefore solicits and resists the spirit of the law, so that it may deceive through deceit. Therefore the Apostle makes these things public, to show to human choice to which thing it should commit its will—not to empty out the choice of liberty, but he teaches free choice to which thing it should join itself. But if there were no choice of the will, then neither the law of the devil, which is flesh, nor the law of God, which is spirit, would, by opposing one another, solicit man with counsels. For he who solicits, persuades; and he who persuades does not bring force, but circumvents; and he who is circumvented has his will changed by certain deceptions. But if there were no free choice, man would be dragged unwillingly to those things which he does not wish. LXII.
If in Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden (Colossians 2:3), how is it that the same Saviour says of the day and hour of the coming judgment that He does not know it (Mark 13:32)? But if He knows it, and yet says that He does not know it, He seems to lie. This saying contains a twofold sense. For He says that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are so hidden in Christ that whoever possesses Christ may find in Him all wisdom and all knowledge: so that to know Christ is to know all things, and to have grasped all wisdom, as is said to the Colossians, 'Let no one deceive you through philosophy and vain seduction, according to the elements of this world, and not according to Christ';
for in Christ dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9): that is, whoever believes in Christ lacks nothing unto salvation, but rather has this in abundance; because the fulness of the Godhead is in Him. And again in the same passage he says, among other things: Let no one, puffed up in vain by the mind of his own flesh through the superstition of angels which he presumes to have seen, exalt himself, not holding fast the Head, from which the whole body, being supplied and knit together, grows with the increase of God (Colossians 2:8, 9, 18-19). If therefore those who believe in Christ, the Head of all principality and power, venerate Him, they lack nothing, but have all that is needful for salvation; nor will it harm them not to know lower things which contribute nothing to salvation, since they know that which is necessary.
Those therefore ought to be said to know all such things who know that which profits them unto salvation. There is also this other sense: that in the Saviour all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. For all the Father's mysteries are known to Him; He measures every creature; and neither does the Father judge any man, but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22); and no one knows the things that are in God save the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11), who is also the Spirit of Christ. How then can He be said not to know the day and hour of the coming judgment, whose Spirit knows the things that are in God, of whom He said that 'He shall receive of mine' (John 16:14, 15)? If therefore he who receives of His knows the things that are to come, how does Christ, who sent the Holy Spirit, not know them?
And can it be that a judge should not know the day of the coming judgment? — seeing that He has given all the signs by which it may be expected. Perhaps too it is said that He truly does not know those to whom He says: Amen I say to you, I know you not (Matthew 25:12). Nor will the foolish and improvident virgins be said to be known, since He said, when they themselves were saying 'Lord, Lord, open to us': Amen I say to you, I know you not. There is therefore a cause for His saying that He does not know what in fact He knows. And so likewise He says: Watch, for you know not at what hour your Lord will come (Matthew 24:42). In order therefore to make us anxious and watchful, when questioned He said that He did not know the day and hour of the coming judgment;
but in order to profit us, He denied that He knew what He did know. For while we are ignorant of what is profitable for us, we altogether desire to know that which, if we knew it, would harm us; but Christ, the provider of our salvation, lest we should hear what was against us, said that He did not know. Now if someone, to a man set in pain and demanding a sword that he might slay himself, should reply that he has none — though he does have one — is he to be charged with lying who denies it, when, if he did not deny it, he would know it would work against the man's good? LXIII. — How is it that, although the Apostles healed all the sicknesses brought to them, they nevertheless gave no cure to their own sick? For surely Epaphroditus would not have been sick unto death (Philippians 2:27), had the Apostle's intercession been heard.
For who can doubt that the Apostle often prayed for this, and did not obtain it? For if he had been heard, would not the infirmity have been taken away at once? Signs and mighty works were wrought by the Apostles for this reason, that unbelief might be compelled to faith, so that men, seeing deeds impossible to men, might acknowledge from this that the preaching was of God, and might prove by power that there was reason in the faith: so that, since words are always contradicted, power was set up as a witness, to which, when words yield, it signifies that there is reason in the faith which cannot be expressed by words. Among the faithful, therefore, signs and wonders are no longer necessary, but firm hope. For after it has been learned
that the things which have been promised are true, a man arms himself all the more for this end: that, despising things present, he may show himself worthy of things to come, laying up merit for himself through toil; as Solomon testifies, who says: Son, when you come to the service of God, stand in righteousness and fear, and prepare your soul for temptation (Ecclesiasticus 2:1). Because man makes progress through temptations, these admonitions have been given. Whence the Apostle says: Through tribulations we must enter into the kingdom of God (Acts 14:21). These trials of tribulation befall us in various ways, so that a soul persevering in the faith it has received may be able to be crowned. For not only is it so that after the simplicity of faith they should allow themselves to be circumcised
for the sake of the elements, and observed new moons and the sabbath — being subjected to and provoked by the elements, that is, of grace and not of the works of the Law. And lest he should seem to have given occasion to the false apostles, who were saying that what the Galatians had received was something other than what the tradition of the truth holds, he at once added: Which is not another gospel, only there are some who trouble you and wish to pervert the Gospel of Christ. It was therefore another thing to which they had been called by the Apostle, namely the Gospel, than that which they had begun to follow at the instigation of the false apostles;
yet it was not another gospel than that which Christ had delivered, so that even by this they might recognize themselves led into error, and might follow faith alone, confessing Christ to be God, and that He suffices for the granting of salvation, through whom they had obtained the remission of sins by adoption, and not through the Law: because grace, apart from the Law, forgives offences. XI. — That we ought not to grieve for the dead, the Apostle Paul indicates (1 Thessalonians 4:12). For to grieve belongs to those who despair; and he himself says of Epaphroditus: He was sick, near to death, but God had mercy on him — and not on him only, but on me also, lest I should have sorrow upon sorrow (Philippians 2:27). How does he forbid grieving, when he himself declares that he would have grieved if Epaphroditus had died?
In one sense he signified that he would grieve over the death of Epaphroditus, had it come to pass, and in another sense he forbids grieving. For here he said that he would grieve, if Epaphroditus had died, on account of the solace of his help, which he used in the Gospel. But he forbids us to grieve in such a way as to mourn the departed as though they were extinguished and lost, despairing of the resurrection. It is therefore one thing to seek the solace of one as though absent, and another to grieve over the destruction of one who is no longer to be. Here consolation has its place; there despair is shut out. XII. — What does it mean that, when the sons of Leah, who are of the tribe of Judah, are slain, Rachel is said to bewail her sons?
5:136
Rachelfilii, quantumadhistoriampertinet, olimpromaleficosuoopereSodomitarum , etspurcitiaquaminconcubinamhominislevitæopcratisunt, exstinctifuerunteterasisuutareliquistribubus , etc.
Rachel's sons, so far as the historical narrative goes, were long ago, on account of their wicked deed against the Sodomites and the filthiness which they wrought upon the concubine of the man of Levi, destroyed and blotted out from the remaining tribes, and so forth.